CD44 in Cancer: Raising monoclonal antibodies against human white blood cells led to the discovery of the CD44 antigen; a single chain hyaluronic acid (HA) binding glycoprotein expressed on a wide variety of normal tissue and on all types of hematopoietic cells. It was originally associated with lymphocyte activation and homing. Currently, its putative physiological role also includes activation of inflammatory genes, modulation of cell cycle, induction of cell proliferation, induction of differentiation and development, induction of cytoskeletal reorganization and cell migration and cell survival/resistance to apoptosis.
In humans, the single gene copy of CD44 is located on the short arm of chromosome 11, 11p13. The gene contains 19 exons; the first 5 are constant, the next 9 are variant, the following 3 are constant and the final 2 are variant. Differential splicing can lead to over 1000 different isoforms. However, currently only several dozen naturally occurring variants have been identified.
The CD44 standard glycoprotein consists of a N-terminal extracellular (including a 20 a.a. leader sequence, and a membrane proximal region (85 a.a.)) domain (270 a.a.), a transmembrane region (21 a.a.) and a cytoplasmic tail (72 a.a.). The extracellular region also contains a link module at the N-terminus. This region is 92 a.a. in length and shows homology to other HA binding link proteins. There is high homology between the mouse and human forms of CD44. The variant forms of the protein are inserted to the carboxy terminus of exon 5 and are located extracellularly when expressed.
A serum soluble form of CD44 also occurs naturally and can arise from either a stop codon (within the variable region) or from proteolytic activity. Activation of cells from a variety of stimuli including TNF-α results in shedding of the CD44 receptor. Shedding of the receptor has also been seen with tumor cells and can result in an increase in the human serum concentration of CD44 by up to 10-fold. High CD44 serum concentration suggests malignancy (ovarian cancer being the exception).
The standard form of CD44 exists with a molecular weight of approximately 37 kD. Post-translational modifications increase the molecular weight to 80-90 kD. These modifications include amino terminus extracellular domain N-linked glycosylations at asparagine residues, O-linked glycosylations at serine/threonine residues at the carboxy terminus of the extracellular domain and glycosaminoglycan additions. Splice variants can range in size from 80-250 kD.
HA, a polysaccharide located on the extracellular matrix (ECM) in mammals, is thought to be the primary CD44 ligand. However, CD44 has also been found to bind such proteins as collagen, fibronectin, laminin etc. There appears to be a correlation between HA binding and glycosylation. Inactive CD44 (does not bind HA) has the highest levels of glycosylation, active CD44 (binding HA) the lowest while inducible CD44 (does not or weakly binds HA unless activated by cytokines, monoclonal antibodies, growth factors, etc.) has glycosylation levels somewhere in between the active and inactive forms.
CD44 can mediate some of its functions through signal transduction pathways that depend on the interaction of the cell, stimulus and the environment. Some of these pathways include the NFκB signaling cascade (involved in the inflammatory response), the Ras-MAPK signal transduction pathway (involved with activating cell cycling and proliferation), the Rho family of proteins (involved with cytoskeleton reorganization and cell migration) and the PI3-K-related signaling pathway (related to cell survival). All of the above-mentioned functions are closely associated with tumor disease initiation and progression. CD44 has also been implicated in playing a role in cancer through a variety of additional mechanisms. These include the presentation of growth factors, chemokines and cytokines by cell surface proteoglycans present on the cell surface of CD44 to receptors involved in malignancy. Also, the intracellular degradation of HA by lysosomal hyaluronidases after internalization of the CD44-HA complex can potentially increase the likelihood of tumor invasiveness and induction of angiogenesis through the ECM. In addition, the transmission of survival or apoptotic signals has been shown to occur through either the standard or variable CD44 receptor. CD44 has also been suggested to be involved in cell differentiation and migration. Many, if not all, of these mechanisms are environment and cell dependent and several give rise to variable findings. Therefore, more research is required before any conclusions can be drawn.
In order to validate a potential functional role of CD44 in cancer, expression studies of CD44 were undertaken to determine if differential expression of the receptor correlates with disease progression. However, inconsistent findings were observed in a majority of tumor types and this is probably due to a combination of reagents, technique, pathological scoring and cell type differences between researchers. Renal cell carcinoma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma appear to be the exception in that patients with high CD44 expressing tumors consistently had shorter survival times than their low or non-CD44 expressing counterparts.
Due to its association with cancer, CD44 has been the target of the development of anti-cancer therapeutics. There is still controversy as to whether the standard or the variant forms of CD44 are required for tumor progression. There is in vivo animal data to support both views and again it may be tumor type and even cell type dependent. Different therapeutic approaches have included injection of soluble CD44 proteins, hyaluronan synthase cDNA, hyaluronidase, the use of CD44 antisense and CD44 specific antibodies. Each approach has led to some degree of success thereby providing support for anti-CD44 cancer therapeutics.
Both variant and standard CD44 specific monoclonal antibodies have been generated experimentally but for the most part these antibodies have no intrinsic biological activity, rather they bind specifically to the type of CD44 they recognize. However, there are some that are either active in vitro or in vivo but generally not both. Several anti-CD44 antibodies have been shown to mediate cellular events. For example the murine antibody A3D8, directed against human erythrocyte Lutheran antigen CD44 standard form, was shown to enhance CD2 (9-1 antibody) and CD3 (OKT3 antibody) mediated T cell activation; another anti-CD44 antibody had similar effects. A3D8 also induced IL-1 release from monocytes and IL-2 release from T lymphocytes. Interestingly, the use of A3D8 in conjunction with drugs such as daunorubicin, mitoxantrone and etoposide inhibited apoptosis induction in HL60 and NB4 AML cells by abrogating the generation of the second messenger ceramide. The J173 antibody, which does not have intrinsic activity and is directed against a similar epitope of CD44s, did not inhibit drug-induced apoptosis. The NIH44-1 antibody, directed against an 85-110 kD and 200 kD form of CD44, augmented T-cell proliferation through a pathway the authors speculated as either cross-linking or aggregation of CD44. Taken together, there is no evidence that antibodies such as these are suitable for use as cancer therapeutics since they either are not directed against cancer (e.g. activate lymphocytes), induce cell proliferation, or when used with cytotoxic agents inhibited drug-induced death of cancer cells.
Several anti-CD44 antibodies have been described which demonstrate anti-tumor effects in vivo. The antibody 1.1ASML, a mouse IgG1 directed to the v6 variant of CD44, has been shown to decrease the lymph node and lung metastases of the rat pancreatic adenocarcinoma BSp73ASML. Survival of the treated animals was concomitantly increased. The antibody was only effective if administered before lymph node colonization, and was postulated to interfere with cell proliferation in the lymph node. There was no direct cytototoxicity of the antibody on the tumor cells in vitro, and the antibody did not enhance complement-mediated cytotoxicity, or immune effector cell function. Utility of the antibody against human cells was not described.
Breyer et al. described the use of a commercially-available antibody to CD44s to disrupt the progression of an orthotopically-implanted rat glioblastoma. The rat glioblastoma cell line C6 was implanted in the frontal lobe, and after 1 week, the rats were given 3 treatments with antibody by intracerebral injection. Treated rats demonstrated decreased tumor growth, and higher body weight than buffer or isotype control treated rats. The antibody was able to inhibit adhesion of cells in vitro to coverslips coated with extracellular matrix components, but did not have any direct cytotoxic effects on cells. This antibody was not tested against human cells.
A study was carried out which compared the efficacy of an antibody to CD44s (IM-7.8.1) to an antibody to CD44v10 (K926). The highly metastatic murine melanoma line B16F10, which expresses both CD44 isoforms, was implanted intravenously into mice. After 2 days, antibodies were given every third day for the duration of the study. Both antibodies caused a significant reduction of greater than 50% in the number of lung metastases; there was no significant difference in efficacy between the two antibodies. The antibody did not affect proliferation in vitro, and the authors, Zawadzki et al., speculated that the inhibition of tumor growth was due to the antibody blocking the interaction of CD44 with its ligand. In another study using IM-7.8.1, Zahalka et al. demonstrated that the antibody and its F(ab′)2 fragment were able to block the lymph node infiltration by the murine T-cell lymphoma LB. This conferred a significant survival benefit to the mice. Wallach-Dayan et al. showed that transfection of LB-TRs murine lymphoma, which does not spontaneously form tumors, with CD44v4-v10 conferred the ability to form tumors. IM-7.8.1 administration decreased tumor size of the implanted transfected cells in comparison to the isotype control antibody. None of these studies demonstrated human utility for this antibody.
GKW.A3, a mouse IgG2a, is specific for human CD44 and prevents the formation and metastases of a human melanoma xenograft in SCID mice. The antibody was mixed with the metastastic human cell line SMMU-2, and then injected subcutaneously. Treatments were continued for the following 3 weeks. After 4 weeks, only 1 of 10 mice developed a tumor at the injection site, compared to 100 percent of untreated animals. F(ab′)2 fragments of the antibody demonstrated the same inhibition of tumor formation, suggesting that the mechanism of action was not dependent on complement or antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity. If the tumor cells were injected one week prior to the first antibody injection, 80 percent of the animals developed tumors at the primary site. However, it was noted that the survival time was still significantly increased. Although the delayed antibody administration had no effect on the primary tumor formation, it completely prevented the metastases to the lung, kidney, adrenal gland, liver and peritoneum that were present in the untreated animals. This antibody does not have any direct cytotoxicity on the cell line in vitro nor does it interfere with proliferation of SMMU-2 cells, and appears to have its major effect on tumor formation by affecting metastasis or growth. One notable feature of this antibody was that it recognized all isoforms of CD44, which suggests limited possibilities for therapeutic use.
Strobel et al. describe the use of an anti-CD44 antibody (clone 515) to inhibit the peritoneal implantation of human ovarian cancer cells in a mouse xenograft model. The human ovarian cell line 36M2 was implanted intraperitoneally into mice in the presence of the anti-CD44 antibody or control antibody, and then treatments were administered over the next 20 days. After 5 weeks, there were significantly fewer nodules in the peritoneal cavity in the antibody treated group. The nodules from both the anti-CD44 and control treated groups were the same size, suggesting that once the cells had implanted, the antibody had no effect on tumor growth. When cells were implanted subcutaneously, there was also no effect on tumor growth, indicating that the antibody itself did not have an anti-proliferative or cytotoxic effect. In addition, there was no effect of the antibody on cell growth in vitro.
VFF-18, also designated as BIWA 1, is a high-affinity antibody to the v6 variant of CD44 specific for the 360-370 region of the polypeptide. This antibody has been used as a 99mTechnetium-labelled conjugate in a Phase 1 clinical trial in 12 patients. The antibody was tested for safety and targeting potential in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Forty hours after injection, 14 percent of the injected dose was taken up by the tumor, with minimal accumulation in other organs including the kidney, spleen and bone marrow. The highly selective tumor binding suggests a role for this antibody in radioimmunotherapy, although the exceptionally high affinity of this antibody prevented penetration into the deeper layers of the tumor. Further limiting the application of BIWA 1 is the immunogenicity of the murine antibody (11 of 12 patients developed human anti-mouse antibodies (HAMA)), heterogenous accumulation throughout the tumor and formation of antibody-soluble CD44 complexes. WO 02/094879 discloses a humanized version of VFF-18 designed to overcome the HAMA response, designated BIWA 4. BIWA 4 was found to have a significantly lower antigen binding affinity than the parent VFF 18 antibody. Surprisingly, the lower affinity BIWA 4 antibody had superior tumor uptake characteristics than the higher affinity BIWA 8 humanized VFF-18 antibody. Both 99mTechnetium-labelled and 186Rhenium-labelled BIWA 4 antibodies were assessed in a 33 patient Phase 1 clinical trial to determine safety, tolerability, tumor accumulation and maximum tolerated dose, in the case of 186Re-labelled BIWA 4. There appeared to be tumor related uptake of 99mTc-labelled BIWA 4. There were no tumor responses seen with all doses of 186Re-labelled BIWA 4, although a number had stable disease; the dose limiting toxicity occurred at 60 mCi/m2. There was a 50-65 percent rate of adverse events with 12 of 33 patients deemed to have serious adverse events (thrombocytopenia, leucopenia and fever) and of those 6, all treated with 186Re-labelled BIWA 4, died in the course of treatment or follow-up due to disease progression. Two patients developed human anti-human antibodies (HAHA). A Phase 1 dose escalation trial of 186Re-labelled BIWA 4 was carried out in 20 patients. Oral mucositis and dose-limiting thrombocytopenia and leucocytopenia were observed; one patient developed a HAHA response. Stable disease was seen in 5 patients treated at the highest dose of 60 mCi/m2. Although deemed to be acceptable in both safety and tolerability for the efficacy achieved, these studies have higher rates of adverse events compared to other non-radioisotope conjugated biological therapies in clinical studies. U.S. patent application US 2003/0103985 discloses a humanized version of VFF-18 conjugated to a maytansinoid, designated BIWI 1, for use in tumor therapy. A humanized VFF 18 antibody, BIWA 4, when conjugated to a toxin, i.e. BIWI 1, was found to have significant anti-tumor effects in mouse models of human epidermoid carcinoma of the vulva, squamous cell carcinoma of the pharynx or breast carcinoma. The unconjugated version, BIWA 4, did not have anti-tumor effects and the conjugated version, BIWI 1, has no evidence of safety or efficacy in humans.
Mab U36 is a murine monoclonal IgG1 antibody generated by UM-SCC-22B human hypopharyngeal carcinoma cell immunization and selection for cancer and tissue specificity. Antigen characterization through cDNA cloning and sequence analysis identified the v6 domain of keratinocyte-specific CD44 splice variant epican as the target of Mab U36. Immunohistochemistry studies show the epitope to be restricted to the cell membrane. Furthermore, Mab U36 labeled 94 percent of the head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) strongly, and within these tumors there was uniformity in cell staining. A 10 patient 99mTc-labelled Mab U36 study showed selective accumulation of the antibody to HNSCC cancers (20.4+/−12.4 percent injected dose/kg at 2 days); no adverse effects were reported but two patients developed HAMA. In a study of radio-iodinated murine Mab U36 there were 3 cases of HAMA in 18 patients and selective homogenous uptake in HNSCC. In order to decrease the antigenicity of Mab U36 and decrease the rate of HAMA a chimeric antibody was constructed. Neither the chimeric nor the original murine Mab U36 has ADCC activity. There is no evidence of native functional activity of Mab U36. 186Re-labelled chimeric Mab U36 was used to determine the utility of Mab U36 as a therapeutic agent. In this Phase 1 escalating dose trial 13 patients' received a scouting dose of 99mTc-labelled chimeric Mab U36 followed by 186Re-labelled chimeric Mab U36. There were no acute adverse events reported but following treatment dose limiting myelotoxcity (1.5 GBq/m2) in 2 of 3 patients, and thrombocytopenia in one patient treated with the maximum tolerated dose (1.0 GBq/m2) were observed. Although there were some effects on tumor size these effects did not fulfill the criteria for objective responses to treatment. A further study of 186Re-labelled chimeric Mab U36 employed a strategy of using granulocyte colony-stimulating factor stimulated whole blood reinfusion to double the maximum-tolerated activity to 2.8 Gy. In this study of nine patients with various tumors of the head and neck, 3 required transfusions for drug related anemia. Other toxicity includes grade 3 myelotoxicity, and grade 2 mucositis. No objective tumor responses were reported although stable disease was achieved for 3-5 months in 5 patients. Thus, it can be seen that although Mab U36 is a highly specific antibody the disadvantage of requiring a radioimmunoconjugate to achieve anti-cancer effects limits its usefulness because of the toxicity associated with the therapy in relation to the clinical effects achieved.
To summarize, a CD44v6 (1.1ASML) and CD44v10 (K926) monoclonal antibody have been shown to reduce metastatic activity in rats injected with a metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma or mice injected with a malignant melanoma respectively. Another anti-CD44v6 antibody (VFF-18 and its derivatives), only when conjugated to a maytansinoid or a radioisotope, has been shown to have anti-tumor effects. Anti-standard CD44 monoclonal antibodies have also been shown to suppress intracerebral progression by rat glioblastoma (anti-CD44s), lymph node invasion by mouse T cell lymphoma (IM-7.8.1) as well as inhibit implantation of a human ovarian cancer cell line in nude mice (clone 515), lung metastasis of a mouse melanoma cell line (IM-7.8.1) and metastasis of a human melanoma cell line in SCID mice (GKW.A3). The radioisotope conjugated Mab U36 anti-CD44v6 antibody and its derivatives had anti-tumor activity in clinical trials that were accompanied by significant toxicity. These results, though they are encouraging and support the development of anti-CD44 monoclonal antibodies as potential cancer therapeutics, demonstrate limited effectiveness, safety, or applicability to human cancers.
Thus, if an antibody composition were isolated which mediated cancerous cell cytotoxicity, as a function of its attraction to cell surface expression of CD44 on said cells, a valuable diagnostic and therapeutic procedure would be realized.
Monoclonal Antibodies as Cancer Therapy: Each individual who presents with cancer is unique and has a cancer that is as different from other cancers as that person's identity. Despite this, current therapy treats all patients with the same type of cancer, at the same stage, in the same way. At least 30% of these patients will fail the first line therapy, thus leading to further rounds of treatment and the increased probability of treatment failure, metastases, and ultimately, death. A superior approach to treatment would be the customization of therapy for the particular individual. The only current therapy which lends itself to customization is surgery. Chemotherapy and radiation treatment cannot be tailored to the patient, and surgery by itself, in most cases is inadequate for producing cures.
With the advent of monoclonal antibodies, the possibility of developing methods for customized therapy became more realistic since each antibody can be directed to a single epitope. Furthermore, it is possible to produce a combination of antibodies that are directed to the constellation of epitopes that uniquely define a particular individual's tumor.
Having recognized that a significant difference between cancerous and normal cells is that cancerous cells contain antigens that are specific to transformed cells, the scientific community has long held that monoclonal antibodies can be designed to specifically target transformed cells by binding specifically to these cancer antigens; thus giving rise to the belief that monoclonal antibodies can serve as “Magic Bullets” to eliminate cancer cells. However, it is now widely recognized that no single monoclonal antibody can serve in all instances of cancer, and that monoclonal antibodies can be deployed, as a class, as targeted cancer treatments. Monoclonal antibodies isolated in accordance with the teachings of the instantly disclosed invention have been shown to modify the cancerous disease process in a manner which is beneficial to the patient, for example by reducing the tumor burden, and will variously be referred to herein as cancerous disease modifying antibodies (CDMAB) or “anti-cancer” antibodies.
At the present time, the cancer patient usually has few options of treatment. The regimented approach to cancer therapy has produced improvements in global survival and morbidity rates. However, to the particular individual, these improved statistics do not necessarily correlate with an improvement in their personal situation.
Thus, if a methodology was put forth which enabled the practitioner to treat each tumor independently of other patients in the same cohort, this would permit the unique approach of tailoring therapy to just that one person. Such a course of therapy would, ideally, increase the rate of cures, and produce better outcomes, thereby satisfying a long-felt need.
Historically, the use of polyclonal antibodies has been used with limited success in the treatment of human cancers. Lymphomas and leukemias have been treated with human plasma, but there were few prolonged remission or responses. Furthermore, there was a lack of reproducibility and there was no additional benefit compared to chemotherapy. Solid tumors such as breast cancers, melanomas and renal cell carcinomas have also been treated with human blood, chimpanzee serum, human plasma and horse serum with correspondingly unpredictable and ineffective results.
There have been many clinical trials of monoclonal antibodies for solid tumors. In the 1980s there were at least four clinical trials for human breast cancer which produced only one responder from at least 47 patients using antibodies against specific antigens or based on tissue selectivity. It was not until 1998 that there was a successful clinical trial using a humanized anti-Her2/neu antibody (HERCEPTIN® trastuzumab)) in combination with Cisplatin. In this trial 37 patients were assessed for responses of which about a quarter had a partial response rate and an additional quarter had minor or stable disease progression. The median time to progression among the responders was 8.4 months with median response duration of 5.3 months.
HERCEPTIN® (trastuzumab) was approved in 1998 for first line use in combination with TAXOL® (paclitaxel). Clinical study results showed an increase in the median time to disease progression for those who received antibody therapy plus TAXOL® (paclitaxel) (6.9 months) in comparison to the group that received TAXOL® (paclitaxel) alone (3.0 months). There was also a slight increase in median survival; 22 versus 18 months for the HERCEPTIN® (trastuzumab) plus TAXOL® (paclitaxel) treatment arm versus the TAXOL® (paclitaxel) treatment alone arm. In addition, there was an increase in the number of both complete (8 versus 2 percent) and partial responders (34 versus 15 percent) in the antibody plus TAXOL® (paclitaxel) combination group in comparison to TAXOL® (paclitaxel) alone. However, treatment with HERCEPTIN® (trastuzumab) and TAXOL® (paclitaxel) led to a higher incidence of cardiotoxicity in comparison to TAXOL® (paclitaxel) treatment alone (13 versus 1 percent respectively). Also, HERCEPTIN® (trastuzumab) therapy was only effective for patients who over express (as determined through immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis) the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2/neu), a receptor, which currently has no known function or biologically important ligand; approximately 25 percent of patients who have metastatic breast cancer. Therefore, there is still a large unmet need for patients with breast cancer. Even those who can benefit from HERCEPTIN® (trastuzumab) treatment would still require chemotherapy and consequently would still have to deal with, at least to some degree, the side effects of this kind of treatment.
The clinical trials investigating colorectal cancer involve antibodies against both glycoprotein and glycolipid targets. Antibodies such as 17-1A, which has some specificity for adenocarcinomas, has undergone Phase 2 clinical trials in over 60 patients with only 1 patient having a partial response. In other trials, use of 17-1A produced only 1 complete response and 2 minutes or responses among 52 patients in protocols using additional cyclophosphamide. To date, Phase III clinical trials of 17-1A have not demonstrated improved efficacy as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer. The use of a humanized murine monoclonal antibody initially approved for imaging also did not produce tumor regression.
Only recently have there been any positive results from colorectal cancer clinical studies with the use of monoclonal antibodies. In 2004, ERBITUX® (cetuximab) was approved for the second line treatment of patients with EGFR-expressing metastatic colorectal cancer who are refractory to irinotecan-based chemotherapy. Results from both a two-arm Phase II clinical study and a single arm study showed that ERBITUX® (cetuximab) in combination with irinotecan had a response rate of 23 and 15 percent respectively with a median time to disease progression of 4.1 and 6.5 months respectively. Results from the same two-arm Phase II clinical study and another single arm study showed that treatment with ERBITUX® (cetuximab) alone resulted in an 11 and 9 percent response rate respectively with a median time to disease progression of 1.5 and 4.2 months respectively.
Consequently in both Switzerland and the United States, ERBITUX® (cetuximab) treatment in combination with irinotecan, and in the United States, ERBITUX® (cetuximab) treatment alone, has been approved as a second line treatment of colon cancer patients who have failed first line irinotecan therapy. Therefore, like HERCEPTIN® (trastuzumab), treatment in Switzerland is only approved as a combination of monoclonal antibody and chemotherapy. In addition, treatment in both Switzerland and the US is only approved for patients as a second line therapy. Also, in 2004, AVASTIN® (bevacizumab) was approved for use in combination with intravenous 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy as a first line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Phase III clinical study results demonstrated a prolongation in the median survival of patients treated with AVASTIN® (bevacizumab) plus 5-fluorouracil compared to patients treated with 5-fluourouracil alone (20 months versus 16 months respectively). However, again like HERCEPTIN® (trastuzumab) and ERBITUX® (cetuximab), treatment is only approved as a combination of monoclonal antibody and chemotherapy.
There also continues to be poor results for lung, brain, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, and stomach cancer. The most promising recent results for non-small cell lung cancer came from a Phase II clinical trial where treatment involved a monoclonal antibody (SGN-15; dox-BR96, anti-Sialyl-LeX) conjugated to the cell-killing drug doxorubicin in combination with the chemotherapeutic agent TAXOTERE® (docetaxel). TAXOTERE® (docetaxel) is the only FDA approved chemotherapy for the second line treatment of lung cancer. Initial data indicate an improved overall survival compared to TAXOTERE® (docetaxel) alone. Out of the 62 patients who were recruited for the study, two-thirds received SGN-15 in combination with TAXOTERE® (docetaxel) while the remaining one-third received TAXOTERE® (docetaxel) alone. For the patients receiving SGN-15 in combination with TAXOTERE® (docetaxel), median overall survival was 7.3 months in comparison to 5.9 months for patients receiving TAXOTERE® (docetaxel) alone. Overall survival at 1 year and 18 months was 29 and 18 percent respectively for patients receiving SNG-15 plus TAXOTERE® (docetaxel) compared to 24 and 8 percent respectively for patients receiving TAXOTERE® (docetaxel) alone. Further clinical trials are planned.
Preclinically, there has been some limited success in the use of monoclonal antibodies for melanoma. Very few of these antibodies have reached clinical trials and to date none have been approved or demonstrated favorable results in Phase III clinical trials.
The discovery of new drugs to treat disease is hindered by the lack of identification of relevant targets among the products of 30,000 known genes that unambiguously contribute to disease pathogenesis. In oncology research, potential drug targets are often selected simply due to the fact that they are over-expressed in tumor cells. Targets thus identified are then screened for interaction with a multitude of compounds. In the case of potential antibody therapies, these candidate compounds are usually derived from traditional methods of monoclonal antibody generation according to the fundamental principles laid down by Kohler and Milstein (1975, Nature, 256, 495-497, Kohler and Milstein). Spleen cells are collected from mice immunized with antigen (e.g. whole cells, cell fractions, purified antigen) and fused with immortalized hybridoma partners. The resulting hybridomas are screened and selected for secretion of antibodies which bind most avidly to the target. Many therapeutic and diagnostic antibodies directed against cancer cells, including HERCEPTIN® (trastuzumab) and rituximab, have been produced using these methods and selected on the basis of their affinity. The flaws in this strategy are twofold. Firstly, the choice of appropriate targets for therapeutic or diagnostic antibody binding is limited by the paucity of knowledge surrounding tissue specific carcinogenic processes and the resulting simplistic methods, such as selection by overexpression, by which these targets are identified. Secondly, the assumption that the drug molecule that binds to the receptor with the greatest affinity usually has the highest probability for initiating or inhibiting a signal may not always be the case.
Despite some progress with the treatment of breast and colon cancer, the identification and development of efficacious antibody therapies, either as single agents or co-treatments, has been inadequate for all types of cancer.